3 ms·

"b-bu-but people can buy more slop and chinese gadgets, why aren't they happy?" That's how you sound... they're unhappy because they can't afford a house or ki

"b-bu-but people can buy more slop and chinese gadgets, why aren't they happy?" That's how you sound... they're unhappy because they can't afford a house or kids, because jobs are increasing precarious and unstable, &c. not because toilet paper and avocados are now 5% cheaper than in 1949 My (unskilled, uneducated) grandpa worked in the same place his whole life, afforded 4 kids and a flat on one income. I'm in the top 10% earners, so is my wife, I can't afford a flat that would be big enough for 2 kids.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
This is a different argument from real wages having not increased for 50 years, which is false.
simianwords 1y ago
They can't afford kids because of a totally different reason. The poorest countries have the highest fertility rates. The richest ones the lowest. Yes housing is proportionally higher but home ownership is pretty much constant https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N Crucially the cost of everything else has come down dramatically to balance for rise in home prices. > I'm in the top 10% earners, so is my wife, I can't afford a flat that would be big enough for 2 kids. This is true but this is not because CEO wages are rising but despite it. IMO this is happening because people moved to the cities and enough houses were not built in time (you try to answer the question as to why). Your grandfather probably lived in a rural part of the country and could afford a big house where there was no demand - something you can still do now. There is another reason housing prices have also gone up which is not talked about often - while prices of other things reduced people had more to spend on other things. They chose to put remaining on housing because.. well where else would you put it?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bumby 1y ago
  Kids are generally an asset in poor countries and a liability in rich ones. That doesn’t negate the fact that those distinctions are drawn from societal causes. >home ownership is pretty much constant I’m not convinced this metric is as good as you imply. It may just imply people are more buried in debt. If you look at the proportion of debt-to-GDP, household debt went from ~15.8% in the 1940s to peaking at 128% just before the financial crises, and settling to lower levels since then. There’s a difference between “owning a home” and “living in the banks collateral”

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

This is a different argument from real wages having not increased for 50 years, which is false.

simianwords 1y ago

They can't afford kids because of a totally different reason. The poorest countries have the highest fertility rates. The richest ones the lowest. Yes housing is proportionally higher but home ownership is pretty much constant https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N Crucially the cost of everything else has come down dramatically to balance for rise in home prices. > I'm in the top 10% earners, so is my wife, I can't afford a flat that would be big enough for 2 kids. This is true but this is not because CEO wages are rising but despite it. IMO this is happening because people moved to the cities and enough houses were not built in time (you try to answer the question as to why). Your grandfather probably lived in a rural part of the country and could afford a big house where there was no demand - something you can still do now. There is another reason housing prices have also gone up which is not talked about often - while prices of other things reduced people had more to spend on other things. They chose to put remaining on housing because.. well where else would you put it?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bumby 1y ago
Kids are generally an asset in poor countries and a liability in rich ones. That doesn’t negate the fact that those distinctions are drawn from societal causes. >home ownership is pretty much constant I’m not convinced this metric is as good as you imply. It may just imply people are more buried in debt. If you look at the proportion of debt-to-GDP, household debt went from ~15.8% in the 1940s to peaking at 128% just before the financial crises, and settling to lower levels since then. There’s a difference between “owning a home” and “living in the banks collateral”